301–310 of 320 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Your reply has nothing to do with the point I made. I wrote nothing about the "believe" stuff, I wrote about his willful paraphrasing of what others said where he outright admits that it's his interpretation of what they meant but never really said. Please wage your generic outrage war somewhere else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're not embodied you can't die and there's no particular need to be anything.
This seems irreverent to me. If you created an evolutionary algorithm, where these very complex statistical models competed for survival, I don’t see how that would help one of them become conscious.
If we did make them that way, they wouldn't do large-language-model stuff though - what's that got to do with survival? Humans went millions of years without bothering to read that much too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, so how would you consider the alternative when someone is expressing their opinion on other topics like: “Do you really like dating people of the same sex? Sorry that’s the kind of thing I associate with someone who does not have any mental issues as yourself”. I am not advocating if any of them are good or bad (personally I avoid both), but we should really have the same standards when it comes to the famed “f…
False equivalence. Religion is a personal choice. Sexual orientation isn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hah! Because one worked/works at Google they must inherently be smart? If those walls could speak... No. There are stupid people at Google too. It's a company and the hiring bar is high but it's also very specific. You can be an idiot in most things but still be very good at one. I've know a few. At Google. There have also been hires that were "good demographics." (That's a quote from one of my senior leadership at t…
The very fact that you're implying that being smart and believing in God are somehow contradictory reeks of condescension. Not to mention that you're grouping all religious doctrine for all religions into a "fairy tale" bucket shows that you did not spend time or effort understanding at least the existing major religions on Earth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Big Bang is the best available explanation of observed facts. This doesn't mean it's the right one, but other explanations are inferior. Especially those provided by religions.
Which religions? The major monotheistic religions state that God created and initiated our universe, which does not contradict that a Big Bang happened.
In any case, saying "The Universe always was." or "Time did not exist before the Universe so 'before' is only a term that makes sense inside the Universe, after its creation, and we cannot fathom what is beyond these limits.", is a more satisfying stance for looking at the Universe than first requiring a seemingly infinitely complex being that then created this universe to look like the being is not even required, according to Occam's razor. And it leaves some nice things to be discovered for us too.
I mean, why would I imagine a god building the Himalayas when I have plate tectonics to explain it? Plate tectonics explain it well, and it explains other phenomena, and we can experimentally verify the process. The god hypothesis just leads to infinity more questions, and as such is scientifically unsatisfying.
The god hypothesis generates a huge amount of un-testable hypotheses and suggests that we can simply give up our search for explanations whenever we can use god to explain things. Religion as such demotivates scientific inquiry, and I think it is not far fetched to assume that that was its original intention. Just read some Yuval Noah Harari, we began the scientific revolution when we no longer accepted what the priests told us.
In short, we indeed have no need for the god hypothesis. At least we never have so far, it has never been the simplest explanation for phenomena. God is simply placed into gaps in our knowledge until we fill the gaps (and answer questions), like: "Why lightning?" or "An Eye can never evolve [is irreducibly complex]." or "Why is earth at the center of the universe?". I therefor prefer to extrapolate the solved to the unsolved and believe that questions like "What is consciousness exactly?" and "Can a machine be conscious as we can be?" will also be answerable without invoking any god.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But wasn’t allowed to call it heresy until 1615, a while after Copernicus died. This isn’t an apologetic that the Catholic Church did the right thing, I’m not even Catholic. I’m trying to highlight that historically Christianity hasn’t been as anti-intellectual as many have been led to believe
> historically Christianity hasn’t been as anti-intellectual as many have been led to believe That is absolutely not true. The 17th century was marked by the transition to the Age of Enlightenment, which carried an anti-anti-intellectual sentiment and thus found itself at odds with Christianity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sleeping at work? Regardless, the point stands unless you work nearly 60 hours a week. (24*7-8*7)/2=56 If you're working 60 hour weeks I'm pretty sure you're not getting 8 hours of sleep every night, either.
sleep: 48-56 hours; work: 40 hours that leaves 72-80 hours for other stuff. but, you are not spending those 80 hours in a single location. work-lunch and commute: 10-15 hours; errands, shopping: 5 hours; go out, dinner, friends, etc: 5-10 hours; weekend activities: 5-15 hours. these numbers are made up based on my experience. some people spend more time at home than others. what remains is that work is the single lar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He goes even further. "My superiors said clearly discriminatory things, but I won't tell you what. I will tell you some other words which I believe they truly wanted to say — but didn't — and look how awful those invented utterances are. No, I really won't tell what they actually said."
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
sleep: 48-56 hours; work: 40 hours that leaves 72-80 hours for other stuff. but, you are not spending those 80 hours in a single location. work-lunch and commute: 10-15 hours; errands, shopping: 5 hours; go out, dinner, friends, etc: 5-10 hours; weekend activities: 5-15 hours. these numbers are made up based on my experience. some people spend more time at home than others. what remains is that work is the single lar…
Ah I see where our miscommunication is, I think. The comment I was responding to said "A company is where people spend most of their time" - I was simply saying that that's false, because most of your time is spent somewhere other than work. I think what you're saying is that (excluding sleep) a plurality of your time is spent at work, meaning that everything else you do (individually) is less time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah I see where our miscommunication is, I think. The comment I was responding to said "A company is where people spend most of their time" - I was simply saying that that's false, because most of your time is spent somewhere other than work. I think what you're saying is that (excluding sleep) a plurality of your time is spent at work, meaning that everything else you do (individually) is less time.
To clarify, I was looking at "work" and "not work" and seeing "not work" at the top. You're (I think) looking at each individual activity, and seeing "work" in #1 or #2.
what matters is that we need to look at time in the context of what should be adjusted to how people want to live their lives
to answer that question we need to look at what is taking up the biggest chunk in our life because that is where a change will have the most effect. if the biggest chunk is supposed to be "not work" then we end up with hundreds of little things that are different for every person that we could improve (many of which in fact are being improved) while we are ignoring the one chunk that affects most people a large part of their time, which is work.
it is interesting to note that one of the things that is happening slowly is the reduction of work hours (4day week, etc) which puts a larger focus on the "not work" parts of our lives. less work means we need more options for people to spend their free time.